Mycenaean Greece and Europe. Interconnections and exchanges in the light of recent research
Abstract
21
Full text
Mycenaean Greece and Europe. Interconnections and exchanges in the light of recent research Anthony Harding ABSTRACT The debate over possible connections between Bronze Age Greece and the rest of the European continent, to which Jan Bouzek made major contributions throughout his career, is reviewed in the light of new con‑ tributions and finds. Particularly important is recent work on the north Italian site of Frattesina. Other categories of evidence are considered in turn. In the light of these advances, it is possible to imagine amuch more interconnected Bronze Age world than was possible 40 years ago. KEYWORDS Greece; Bronze Age; exchange; long ‑distance travel; amber; Frattesina. INTRODUCTION In 1966 Jan Bouzek published an article in Památky Archeologické entitled ‘The Aegean and Central Europe: an introduction to the study of cultural interrelations 1600–1300 BC’ (Bouzek 1966). This was the first full study of asubject which had increasingly become amatter of debate over preceding decades.1 Studies of particular aspects had been published over the years, for instance those by Gero von Merhart (1940), Vladimir Milojčić (1955), Rolf Hachmann (1957) or Nancy Sandars (1959) on amber spacer ‑plates; or H.C. Beck and J.F.S. Stone (1936), and Stone and L.C. Thomas (1956), on faience beads. Other studies dealt with individual objects or object classes, such as the Dohnsen cup (Sprockhoff 1961) or bronze double ‑axes (Hawkes 1936–1937). The only systematic study, which was published quite independently in the same year, was that by Stuart Piggott, in abrief article in aFestschrift for Jiří Neustupný (Piggott 1966). In contrast to the studies of individual objects, Bouzek’sstudy, like Piggott’s, covered awide range of object classes, including all those listed above but incorporating many more into the discussion: pottery forms, Aegean Type Arapiers and Type C swords (after the Sandars clas‑ sification), spiral decoration on bone objects in the Carpathian Basin, supposed imitations of Aegean vessels in central Europe, earrings (Lockenringe), helmets, cult equipment, symbolic designs such as horns, axes and bird motifs, summarised in aconclusion that saw the Aegean and European worlds connected by regular interactions and exchanges. Bouzek developed and expanded his article for his first Habilitation dissertation, sub‑ mitted in 1968 and entitled Homérské Řecko astřední Evropa I: Egejská oblast astřední Evropa 1700–700př.n.l. It is amelancholy fact that this submission was not accepted for political reasons, but since it forms the basis for his 1985 book it is an interesting document, since it shows the development of Bouzek’sthinking during the two decades before.2 1 Bouzek had published brief discussions of the material previously: e.g. Bouzek 1965. 2 Acopy of the dissertation, which Bouzek gave me in 1970, has been lodged in the library of the Institute of Classical Archaeology. STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1, 21–43
22 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 In the following years, anumber of studies appeared which covered some or all of this material, for instance Keith Branigan’son the Wessex ‑Mycenae connection (Branigan 1970) or the Surbo metalwork (Branigan 1972), Sabine Gerloff’sstudy of the daggers of Early Bronze Age Britain, with aconsideration of the Wessex Culture (including astudy of Cypriot daggers) (Gerloff 1975), Józef Vladár’saccount of supposed East Mediterranean influences on Slovakia (stemming largely from his excavation at Spišský Štvrtok) (Vladár 1973), or Hartmut Matthäus’sarticle on the connections between Italy and Greece (Matthäus 1980). All these studies added important information, even if some of them treated controversial matters as if they were straightforward. Meanwhile Helen Hughes ‑Brock and Ipublished adetailed study of amber in the Aegean Bronze Age (Harding– Hughes ‑Brock 1974), and Iadded astudy of metalwork that connected Europe and the Aegean (Harding 1975). Bernhard Hänsel also contributed on aspects of the debate, as shown in anumber of articles (e.g. Hänsel 1982).3 The next step in the story is the publication of Bouzek’sand my book ‑length studies on the whole question of the Aegean ‑European connection (Harding 1984; Bouzek 1985). 4 These two books ostensibly covered exactly the same material, with some differences of geographical coverage (for instance, Bouzek included connections with Anatolia, which Ilargely ignored), and in the detail of the material discussed (Bouzek included lists of the objects he was consid‑ ering, which for the most part Itook as read). Bouzek also provided arather more narrative account than Idid. The major difference between the two accounts, however, is in their overall approach and the resulting conclusions. Bouzek’sapproach was to regard all, or almost all, the classes of evidence as indications of ahigh level of interaction between the Aegean area and central Europe; if they showed no interaction for the most part he did not include them. By contrast, my approach was to adopt asceptical attitude to many of the claimed links, and only to accept those where there seemed to be strong reasons to believe that they were credible. In the years following the publication of these books, arange of reactions was apparent. Most scholars followed Bouzek’sapproach, even if they were doubtful about some of the claimed links. 5 By contrast, my views were appreciated by some but severely criticised by others, notably Kristian Kristiansen at aconference held in Mainz in 1985.6 It was therefore no surprise when he later wrote several articles and books espousing what Ireferred to as the ‘maximalist’ position, accepting every claimed link as genuine, even when the evidence was demonstrably weak or non ‑existent, and downplaying or arguing against my views. Chief among these assertions was Kristiansen’sacceptance, in his 2005 book with Thomas Larsson, 3 Hänsel later excavated at Monkodonja in Istria, arguing that its conception owed much to Aegean models. 4 It should be made clear that although my book appeared ayear before Bouzek’s, this was entirely due to logistical reasons connected with Bouzek’shealth, workload and the travails of seeing the book through the press. He was characteristically gracious about the fact that Ihad published first on atopic which he had made his own. He did indeed point out in his Foreword that the book ‘might have been more useful if it had been published fifteen years earlier’, but was consoled by the fact that ‘subsequent publications and studies have made it possible to improve many parts of it’ (Bouzek 1985, 11). 5 Reviews of Bouzek: Philip Betancourt, AJA 91, 1987, 146–147; Nancy Sandars, JHS 107, 1987, 241. Re‑ views of Harding: Pro: Colin Renfrew, Man 21, 1986, 143–144; contra: R. Ross Holloway, AJA 90, 1986, 357–358. Bouzek’sreview of my book (polite but for obvious reasons unfavourable): Gnomon 59/2, 1987, 181–182; mine of Bouzek’s: Proceedings of Prehistoric Society 52, 1986, 368–369. 6 This conference, later published as Schauer 1990, brought some of these divergencies into sharp focus: while Ipresented ageneral overview based on my 1984 book, Kristian Kristiansen launched into astrong critique, calling my views as expressed in the book ‘absurd’.
23ANTHONY HARDING of the Bernstorf amber finds as genuine, when most people already at that time believed them to be forgeries (Kristiansen– Larsson 2005, 127, 235).7 Other contributors to the Mainz conference adopted arange of considered views, though Tiberiu Bader went along with the maximalist position. Peter Schauer wrote acouple of arti‑ cles at this time reviewing the whole debate, and generally espousing this position (Schauer 1983; 1984; 1985). In 1994 Bouzek published an article reviewing the situation, concentrating on new finds such as those of oxhide ingots in Bulgaria or the excavations at Malkoto Kale and Kastanas, as well as abetter knowledge of pottery traditions in the Albanian ‑Macedonian area. He also introduced the question of climatic change, long an interest of his, as apossible explanatory factor in understanding ancient migrations. He concluded by pointing to what is known of historical migrations, and suggesting that the situation in Europe at the end of the Mycenae‑ an period fitted such patterns. The main contribution of this article is to reinforce abroadly historical view of the whole Aegean ‑European debate; it concentrated on the literature that had appeared in the ten years since his book and mine had been published. Bouzek made one last contribution to the debate shortly before his death (Bouzek 2020). This brief article brings in consideration of weights and weighing, though the most recent work had escaped his notice (Rahmstorf 2010; Ialongo 2018; Ialongo– Rahmstorf 2019; Rahmstorf 2019). Otherwise he concentrated on pottery similarities, clay altars, and gold discs from Bohemia, whose parallels in Italy and Greece suggested to him similar beliefs related to the sun. He was still tempted to accept the Bernstorf finds as genuine, pointing out that symbols on clay vessels and discs occur in several parts of Neolithic and Copper Age Europe; few scholars would see these as relevant to the debate, however, and the much ‑discussed Tărtăria finds do not materially change that situation. NEW DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1994 Ihave already alluded to Kristiansen’s2005 book, the main purpose of which was (apart from further trenchant criticism of my work, at that time already over 20 years old) to promote the idea of the importance of travellers in symbolic transmission and social transformation in Bronze Age Europe. This book has been much cited in spite of its many inadequacies,8 but in the present context its contribution need not be considered further. By contrast, many of Kristiansen’smore recent articles have painted asomewhat different picture. Ishould also mention abook of 1998 (Kristiansen 1998), which gave an account of Bronze and Iron Age Europe, with achapter devoted to World Systems Theory, of which Kristiansen was an en‑ thusiastic proponent, and which he used to support his arguments for extensive connections across Europe as part of acore ‑periphery model. Several outline reviews of all or part of the material have appeared in the last 25 years, for instance that by Valeriu Sîrbu and Christian Schuster (Sîrbu– Schuster 1997), which adds little to the picture and accepts all the artefacts already mentioned as genuine indicators of contact. Andrea Vianello has considered the question of exchange networks in the central and western Mediterranean, with particular reference to the role of imported Aegean products (Vianello 2005; 2008; 2009). 7 Kristiansen later retracted this view, in the light of the overwhelming evidence that the amber finds could not be genuine (pers. comm.), as shown by Kate Verkooijen (2017). 8 Compare, contra the many favourable reviews of the book, Harding 2006; Nordquist– Whittaker 2007, along with the pugnacious response by Kristiansen and Larsson (2007).
24 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 New reviews of the situation regarding metalwork, particularly swords, by Sabina Pabst and Paulina Suchowska ‑Ducke have appeared (Pabst 2013; Kristiansen– Suchowska ‑Ducke 2015; Suchowska ‑Ducke 2015; 2016). The careful review by Pabst argues on the basis of Naue II sword forms in favour of the now well ‑accepted view that there were many common elements in weapon form between Greece and Italy, suggesting that ‘the phenomenon can be interpreted as part of extensive exchange and trade connections which took place between the Late Mycenaean society in the north ‑western Peloponnese and the communities of the western and eastern seaboards of the upper Adriatic during the 12th century BC’. Suchowska‑ ‑Ducke sees the north ‑south relationship as being primarily based around trade, and discerns three phases of contact. In most respects she adopts the ‘maximalist’ position, and her debt to Kristiansen is clear in this revealing sentence: ‘The main danger […] lies in over ‑interpreting the meaning of individual items and neglecting the bigger picture’ (Suchowska ‑Ducke 2016, 64); this appears to mean that individual objects in themselves have much less importance than an overarching model with which to interpret the finds, much as Kristiansen and Lars‑ son argued in 2005. Kristiansen and Suchowska ‑Ducke present acomplex picture in their contribution, justice to which would require alonger discussion; the swords are taken to suggest the rise of awarrior aristocracy, and the existence of aglobalised network of power and wealth. Among the processes that these authors identify are new forms of settlement and increasing population density; new forms of agrarian intensification; and the existence of acentre ‑periphery dynamic that links the Mediterranean with areas to the north and west. Core ‑periphery theory is thus not yet dead. After these general discussions, Ishall briefly list the main new findings and discoveries, before attempting an overall view of the situation. Some of these relate to artefact types, but one site deserves mention above all, because of its crucial importance for an understanding of trade and cross ‑cultural interaction in the period around 1000 BC: Frattesina in the lower Po valley, near its delta. FRATTESINA (ROVIGO, LOWER PO VALLEY) Of the many sites that contribute to the overall picture of interconnections in the Bronze Age, Frattesina holds an outstanding position. Although the excavations on the site had started in 1968, and finds were deposited in the Museo Civico in Rovigo (where Isaw them in 1972), the account of the first systematic excavations only appeared in 1981 (Bietti Sestieri 1981), though short accounts had appeared before that (Bietti Sestieri 1980); excavations con‑ tinued into the 1980s and were resumed in 2016, with remote sensing techniques also being used (Fig. 1). In recent years asustained campaign has been launched to publish all the work done on the site, and to bring together all the analyses carried out. This work has appeared in many articles on individual topics (cf below) but above all in two collective volumes (Bietti Sestieri– Bellintani– Giardino eds. 2019; Bellintani 2020), with another one in prepa‑ ration. As aconsequence, we now know agreat deal about this crucial site, as well as others in the same area. Frattesina had abundant finds of glass, metalwork, amber, ivory, and bone and antler, as well as ceramics, which included sherds of Mycenaean pottery and pieces of ostrich egg. Glass was worked on site, as were metals; and the range of finds, including stone weights, indicates extensive connections round the Adriatic and beyond. The site belongs predominantly to the period around 1000 BC, when many links connected the two sides of the Adriatic, and one may infer that extensive commerce was taking place through the length of that sea and beyond (Cavazzutietal. 2019).
25ANTHONY HARDING Fig. 1: Aerial photo, taken from ahang ‑glider, of the site of Frattesina. Above left (north ‑west) the present ‑day village of Fratta Polesine. The two roads running eastwards from the left roughly define the extent of the ancient branch of the ‘Po di Adria’, the main branch of the Po in the Bronze Age. Around 200 m to the south of the southern bank of the ancient river course, the traces of the settlement of Frattesina can be seen, about 1200 m long and 100–200 m wide. In the centre of the site can be seen the traces of the ‘central canal’ which crosses it from west to east. Investigations conducted so far (Baldo– Balista– Bellintani 2018) suggest the presence of anetwork of canals that can be traced running roughly west ‑east and north ‑south. Around the centre of the photo is arectangular area, representing the excavations of Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri between 1974 and 1989 (Bietti Sestieri 1981; Bietti Sestieri– Bellintani– Giardino eds. 2019). Photo: Raffaele Peretto, personal archive (courtesy of Paolo Bellintani). AMBER Since Bouzek and Iwrote about amber, much has been written about Bronze Age finds and catalogues in several countries, for instance in the Balkans (Palavestra 1993; Zygouris 2019; Cwaliński 2020), the Czech Republic (Ernée 2012; Chvojkaetal. 2017), Slovakia and the Carpathian Basin (Marková 1993; 1999), Italy (Salzanietal. 2006), especially in the area near Frattesina (see below), Hungary (Jaeger 2016), Romania (Boroffka 2003), Bulgaria (Gergova 2009; Ivanova– Kuleff 2009), Albania (Kurti 2013; 2017), as well as new finds from Greece or new examinations of old ones (Sgouritsa Polychronakou– Nikolentzos 2016). In addition, Janusz Czebreszuk has published an updated account of amber in Mycenaean Greece (Czebreszuk 2011), along with several accounts of the part it played in north ‑south contact (e.g. Czebreszuk 2013); and Joseph Maran has made interesting contributions to the debate (Maran 2004; 2013). Particularly important has been adoctoral dissertation by Kate Verkooijen, unfortunately unpublished, which examined the whole question of amber spacer ‑plates and pinning down
26 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 the way they were produced and the ornaments they were part of; there are also important chronological implications in her conclusions (Verkooijen 2014). It is to be hoped that this work will soon see the light of day. Finds in the lower Po valley are also very important, and have centred on Frattesina and nearby sites, such as Campestrin di Grignano Polesine (Bellintani 2014; Bellintanietal. 2015). The amber has given rise to anumber of articles, not surprising since Frattesina itself contained intriguing amber finds, and Campestrin produced fragments indicating that the site had been used for the manufacture of amber objects, notably beads. Among the bead types found at Frattesina are two of particular importance: the Tiryns and Allumiere types (Figs. 2–3). Both of these are found widely in the Adriatic area in the later part of the Bronze Age, the Tiryns type also in Greece. This much has been known for many years, and was discussed in both Bouzek’sand my books (Harding 1984, 82–86; Bouzek 1985, 172–173). Since then, many more finds have been mapped, and the information from the Frat‑ tesina excavations published (Palavestra 1992; Cultraro 2006; Negroni Catacchio 2014; Bellintanietal. 2015; Negroni Catacchio– Gallo 2018). But aremarkable find from Hor‑ diivka in Ukraine (Fig. 4) came as acomplete surprise to everyone (Berezanskaja– Kločko 1998), and has changed the distribution map of these beads in adramatic way. As well as these extraordinary finds, work by the Italian team has made major contributions to the study of the typology of the Tiryns ‑type beads, identifying several distinct forms of these strange beads.9 9 This work has been carried out above all by Ursula Thun Hohenstein, Paolo Bellintani, and Ivana Angelini, who presented it at the 2018 conference in Rovigo ‘Frattesina cinquant’anni dopo. Il Delta del Po tra Europa e Mediterraneo nei secoli attorno al 1000 a.C.’. Apublication is forthcoming. Fig. 2: Beads of Tiryns type from the hoard known as the Frattesina ‘tesoretto’ (Bellintani– Peretto 1972; Negroni Catacchio 1972). Photo: Michele Baldo. Archivio della Direzione Regionale Musei del Veneto. Fig. 3: Beads of Allumiere type from the Frattesina ‘tesoretto’. Photo: Michele Baldo. Archivio della Direzione Regiona‑ le Musei del Veneto.
27ANTHONY HARDING Fig. 4: Beads of Tiryns type from Hordiivka, Ukraine (source: Berezanskaja– Kločko 1998).
28 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 FAIENCE AND GLASS Analytical work has continued on faience and glass beads from various countries, for in‑ stance Ireland (Magee 1993), that by Alison Sheridan and Andrew Shortland on British and Irish beads (Sheridan– Shortland 2004), Shortland and colleagues on the north Caucasus (Shortland– Shishlina– Yegorkov 2007), several groups looking at the nature and re‑ lationships of Mycenaean glass (Nikita– Henderson 2006; Waltonetal. 2009; Hender‑ son– Evans– Nikita 2010; Shortland 2016; Nikita– Nightingale– Chenery 2017), the Uluburun ship (Jackson– Nicholson 2010), the west Eurasian steppe (Stolyarova 2000), Mildner and colleagues on north German material (Mildneretal. 2009), and perhaps most remarkable, Jeanette Varberg and colleagues working on Scandinavian glass beads (Varberg– Gratuze– Kaul 2015; Varbergetal. 2016). The findings of this group seem to show that Mesopotamian beads found their way not only to Egypt, but also to several parts of Europe, including Denmark and north Germany. Glass ‑making was amajor industry at Frattesina also, and aseries of analyses have demon‑ strated the glass types being produced there (Towleetal. 2001; Angelinietal. 2004; Wal‑ tonetal. 2009; Hendersonetal. 2015; Angelini 2019). All these discussions and presentations have enabled amuch fuller knowledge of glass and faience compositions, and thus production places and potential trade routes. SPIRAL ORNAMENT The existence of many objects in the Carpathian Basin, typically in bone but also on ceramics, has long been held up as aclose link between north and south, given that the motifs are very similar to those found on gold objects from the Shaft Graves. Bouzek accepted these links; Iwas sceptical. Silvia Penner provided more detail on the material that links the Shaft Graves with the European steppe region (Penner 1998), though her views have been much criticized. But it is the work of Wolfgang David in the last 25 years that has changed the situation most markedly (David 1997; 2001; 2002; 2007). It is now impossible to ignore the remarkable sim‑ ilarity between the decorative motifs in the two areas– even though the processes by which such connections could have come about are still difficult to specify. Arecent find of adecorated antler horse harness element (‘cheekpiece’) from Mitrou in central Greece (Fig. 5) has confirmed the presence of horse equipment in early Mycenaean Greece (already assumed from the Shaft Graves) and led to adiscussion of anew ideology of power in Greece at that time, perhaps connected with northern elites (Maran– Van de Moortel 2014). It also bears on the whole question of the arrival of the horse ‑drawn chariot in Greece, atopic which has exercised many scholars in recent times (Maran 2020, with detailed critique of other contributions). WEAPONS: RAPIERS AND CYPRIOT ‘DAGGERS’ Many authors have accepted the rapiers found in Bulgaria and Romania as evidence of the export of Aegean weapons, though in fact they only resemble the Aegean pieces in being long and thin, not in the details of blade or hilt. This is atypical example of wishful thinking on the part of the ‘maximalists’; it is possible that the idea of fighting with arapier connected different parts of the Bronze Age world in the middle of the second millennium BC, but there
29ANTHONY HARDING can be no question of Minoan manufacture of these pieces, and since there is no new evidence on the matter, nothing further need be said about them. One category of evidence has always seemed particularly baffling: the finds of hook ‑tang weapons of Cypriot origin (‘Cypriot daggers’ or ‘spearheads’) found across Europe (Fig. 6). While none of these has atruly secure provenance, there are so many of them, unlike, say, the Dohnsen cup, that an explanation based on collectors or modern importation has become increasingly unlikely. Sabine Gerloff listed them and believed them to be genuine (Gerloff 1975); Trevor Watkins dismissed them (Watkins 1976); in 1984 Iwas sceptical (Harding 1984, 171); Bouzek made no definite statement about them but clearly thought they were aplausible part of the story (Bouzek 1985, 37–39). Dirk Brandherm has recently devoted attention to these finds again (Brandherm 2000; 2017), and my own thoughts on them have turned from scepticism to acceptance (Harding 2021). There are simply too many of them for this to be acoincidence, or the result of stray finds from collections outside the East Mediterranean. Fig. 5: Antler horse harness element from Mitrou, central Greece, decorated with spiral ornament. Drawing: Tina Ross (courtesy of Aleydis Van de Moortel). ©Mitrou Archaeological Project.
36 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 Bergeretal. 2019 = Berger, D.– Soles, J.S.– Giumlia ‑Mair, A.R.– Brügmann, G.– Galili, E.– Lockhoff, N.– Pernicka, E.: Isotope systematics and chemical composition of tin ingots from Mochlos (Crete) and other Late Bronze Age sites in the eastern Mediterranean Sea: An ultimate key to tin provenance? PLoS ONE 14/6. e0218326, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218326 Bettelli, M. 2002: Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo. Ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana. Grandi contesti e problemi della Protostoria italiana 5. Firenze. Bettelli, M. 2009: Handmade Burnished Ware e ceramic grigia tornita in Egeo nella tarda età del bronzo– una messa apunto. Studi Micenei ed Egeo -Anatolici 51, 95–121. Bettelli, M. 2017: Al di là del limite. Nuovi dati sulle ceramiche HBW nel Mediterraneo orientale e nel Levante. In: M. Cupitòetal. (eds.): Beyond Limits. Studi in onore di Giovanni Leonardi. Antenor Quaderni 39. Padova, 371–379. Bietti Sestieri, A.M. 1981: Lo scavo dell’abitato protostorico di Frattesina di Fratta Polesine (Rovigo). 1. La sequenza stratigrafica del quadro U6 (campagne 1975–1977). Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 82 (1975–1980), 221–256. Bietti Sestieri, A.M. 1980: L’abitato di Frattesina. In: Este e la Civiltà Paleoveneta acento anni dalle prime scoperte. Atti dell’XI Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici, Este ‑Padova 1976. Firenze, 23–37. Bietti Sestieri, A.M.– Bellintani, P.– Giardino, Cl. eds. 2019: Frattesina. Un centro internazionale di produzione e di scambio nella Tarda Età del Bronzo del Veneto. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche; Memorie serie IX, 39/1. Roma. Boileauetal. 2010 = Boileau, M.‑C.– Badre, L.– Capet, E.– Jung, E. – Mommsen, H: Foreign ceramic tra‑ dition, local clays. The Handmade Burnished Ware of Tell Kazel (Syria). Journal of Archaeological Science 37/7, 1678–1689. Borg, G.– Pernicka, E. 2017: Goldene Zeiten?– Europäische Goldvorkommen und ihr Bezug zur Himmels‑ scheibe von Nebra. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 96, 111–138. Boroffka, N. 2003: Observaţii asupra descoperirilor preistorice de chihlimbar din România. Apulum 39, 145–168. Bouzek, J. 1965: Mykénské araně řecké vlivy na území střední Evropy [Aegean Culture and Central Europe 2000– 500 B.C.]. Listy filologické 88/3, 241–255 Bouzek, J. 1966: The Aegean and Central Europe: an introduction to the study of cultural interrelations 1600–1300 B.C. Památky archeologické 57, 242–276. Bouzek, J. 1969: Homerisches Griechenland im Lichte der archäologischen Quellen. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philosophica et Historica, MonographiaXXIX. Praha. Bouzek, J. 1985: The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe. Cultural interrelations in the second millennium B.C. Praha– Göteborg. Bouzek, J. 2018: Studies of Homeric Greece. Praha. Bouzek, J. 2020: Notes on relations between Mycenaean Greece and the Central European Tumulus culture. In: K. Kopanias– I. Papadatos (eds.): KYDALIMOS. Timitikos tomos yia ton kathigiti Georgio Stul. Korre / Studies in Honor of prof.Georgios St. Korres 1. Athens University Review of Archaeology 4. Athens, 449–453. Brandherm, D. 2000: Zyprische Griffangelklingen aus West‑ und Mitteleuropa? Zur Problematik einer Quellengruppe der frühen und mittleren Bronzezeit. Kleine Schriftenreihe, Freiburger Institut für Palaeowissenschaftliche Studien 4, 1–22. Brandherm, D. 2017: Zyprische Griffangelklingen & Co. aus West‑ und Mitteleuropa? Noch einmal zur Problematik einer Quellengruppe der frühen und mittleren Bronzezeit. In: Memento dierum antiquorum… Festschrift für Majolie Lenerz -de Wilde zum 70. Geburtstag. Hagen, 45–70. Branigan, K. 1970: Wessex and Mycenae: some evidence reviewed. Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine 65, 89–107. Branigan, K. 1972: The Surbo bronzes—some observations. Proceedings of the Prehististoric Society 38, 276–285.
37ANTHONY HARDING Catling, H.W. 1956: Bronze cut ‑and ‑thrust swords in the Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 22, 102–125. Catling, H.W. 1961: Anew bronze sword from Cyprus. Antiquity 35, 115–122. Cavazzuti, C.– Cardarelli, A.etal. 2019: Mobile elites at Frattesina. Flows of people in aLate Bronze Age ‘port of trade’ in northern Italy. Antiquity 93, 624–644. Chvojkaetal. 2017 = Chvojka, O.– Chytráček, M.– Metlička, M. – Michálek, J.: Jantar střední až pozdní doby bronzové vČechách [Bernstein der mittleren bis späten Bronzezeit in Böhmen]. Památky Archeologické 108, 89–120. Cultraro, M. 2006: Ivaghi di ambra del tipo Tirinto nella protostoria italiana. Nuovi dati dall’area egeo‑ ‑balcanica. In: Materie prime e scambi nella preistoria italiana. Atti della XXXIX Riunione Scientifica. Firenze 2004. Firenze, 1535–1553. Cwaliński, M. 2020: Bronze Age amber in Western and Central Balkans. Arheološki vestnik 71, 133–172. Czebreszuk, J. 2011: Bursztyn w kulturze mykeńskiej. Zarys problematyki badawczej. Poznań. Czebreszuk, J. 2013: Mysterious Raw Material from the far North. Amber in Mycenaean Culture. In: S. Ber‑ gerbrant– S. Sabatini (eds.): Counterpoints. Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen. BAR International Series 2508. Oxford, 557–564. d’Agata, A.L.– Boileau, M.‑C.– De Angelis, S. 2012: Handmade Burnished Ware from the island of Crete: aview from the inside. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 62, 295–330. David, W. 1997: Altbronzezeitliche Beinobjekte des Karpatenbeckens mit Spiralwirbel‑ oder Wellenband‑ ornament und ihre Parallelen auf der Peloponnes und in Anatolien in frühmykenischen Zeit. In: P.I. Ro‑ man (ed.): The Thracian World at the Crossroads of CivilizationsI. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Thracology, Constanţa ‑Mangalia ‑Tulcea 1996. Bucharest, 247–305. David, W. 2001: Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Donau ‑Karpatenraum, osteuropäischen Steppengebieten und ägäisch ‑anatolischem Raum zur Zeit der mykenischen Schachtgräber unter Berücksichtigung neuerer Funde aus Südbayern. In: Anodos, Studies of Ancient World 1, 51–80. David, W. 2002: Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hajdúsámson -Apa- -Ighiel -Zajta. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 18. Alba Iulia. David, W. 2007: Gold and bone artefacts as evidence of mutual contact between the Aegean, the Carpathian Basin and southern Germany in the second millenium BC.In: I. Galanakietal. (eds.): Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory across borders. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe’, University of Zagreb, 11–14 April 2005. Liège, 411–420. Eder, B.– Jung, R.2005: On the character of social relations between Greece and Italy in the 12 th /11 th C. BC.In: R. Laffineur– E. Greco (eds.): Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Aegaeum 25. Liège– Austin, 485–495. Ernée, M. 2012: Jantar včeské únětické kultuře– kpočátkům jantarové stezky [Bernstein in der böhmischen Aunjetitz ‑Kultur– zu den Anfängen der Bernsteinstrasse]. Památky archeologické 103, 71–172. French, E. 1989: Possible northern intrusions at Mycenae. In: J.G.P.Best– N.M.W. de Vries (eds.): Thracians and Mycenaeans. Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24–26 September 1984. Leiden, 39–51. Gergova, D. 2009: Amber in Ancient Thrace. In: A. Palavestraetal. (eds.): Amber in Archaeology. Proceedings of the fifth International Conference on Amber in Archaeology, Beograd 2006. Beograd, 178–189. Gerloff, S. 1975: The Early Bronze Age Daggers in Great Britain and aReconsideration of the Wessex Culture. Prähistorische Bronzefunde VI/2. München. Hachmann, R.1957: Bronzezeitliche Bernsteinschieber. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 22, 1–36. Hall, J.M. 1997: Ethnic Identity in Greek antiquity. Cambridge. Hänsel, B. 1982: Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. In: B. Hänsel (ed.): Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 1. Berlin– Bad Bramstedt, 1–38.
38 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 Hänsel, B. 2002: Zusammenfassende Bemerkungen zum Siedlungsverlauf in Kastanas– Kontinuität und Bevölkerungswandel. In: R. Jung (ed.): Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronzeund Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Drehscheibenkeramik der Schichten 19–11. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 18. Kiel, 11–27. Hänsel, B. 2016: Invasion, Immigration, Infiltration im bronzezeitlichen Makedonien? In: A. Zanocietal. (eds.): Mensch, Kultur und Gesellschaft von der Kupferzeit bis zur frühen Eisenzeit im nördlichen Eurasien. Beiträge zu Ehren zum 60. Geburtstag von Eugen Sava / Man, culture, and society from the Copper Age until the early Iron Age in northern Eurasia. Contributions in honour of the 60th anniversary of Eugen Sava. Tyragetia International 1. Chişinău, 127–143. Harding, A. 1975: Mycenaean Greece and Europe. The evidence of bronze tools and implements. Proceedings of the Prehististoric Society 41, 183–202. Harding, A. 1984: The Mycenaeans and Europe. London. Harding, A. 2006: Facts and fantasies from the Bronze Age. Antiquity 80, 463–465. Harding, A. 2021: The movement of commodities in Bronze Age Europe. In: L. Rahmstorfetal. (eds.): Merchants, Measures and Money. Understanding Technologies of Early Trade in aComparative Perspective. Weights and Value 2. Kiel– Hamburg, 127–139. Harding, A.F.– Hughes ‑Brock, H. 1974: Amber in the Mycenaean world. Annual of the British School at Athens 69, 145–172. Haustein, M.– Gillis, C.– Pernicka, E. 2010: Tin isotopy– anew method for solving old questions. Archaeometry 52, 816–832. Hawkes, C.F.C. 1936‑1937: The Double Axe in Prehistoric Europe. Annual of the British School at Athens 37, 141–159. Hendersonetal. 2015 = Henderson, J.– Evans, J.– Bellintani, P.– Bietti ‑Sestieri, A.M.: Production, mixing and provenance of Late Bronze Age mixed alkali glasses from northern Italy: an isotopic approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 55, 1–8. Henderson, J.– Evans, J.– Nikita, K. 2010: Isotopic evidence for the primary production, provenance, and trade of Late Bronze Age glass in the Mediterranean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 10/1, 1–24. Ialongo, N. 2018: The earliest balance weights in the West. Towards an independent metrology for Bronze Age Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29, 103–124. Ialongo, N.– Rahmstorf, L. 2019: The identification of balance weights in pre ‑literate Bronze Age Europe. Typology, chronology, distribution and metrology. Weight and Value 1, 99–120. Ivanova, S.– Kuleff, I. 2009: Archaeological amber from the Late Bronze and Iron Age from the territory of present Bulgaria. Archaeologia Bulgarica 13/3, 23–46. Jackson, C.M.– Nicholson, P.T. 2010: The provenance of some glass ingots from the Uluburun shipwreck. Journal of Archaeological Science 37/2, 295–301. Jaeger, M. 2016: Middle Bronze Age amber finds in Hungary. In: P.L. Cellarosietal. (eds.): The Amber Roads. The Ancient Cultural and Commercial Communication between the Peoples. Millenni. Studi di archeologia preistorica 13. Roma, 205–215. Jonesetal. 2014 = Jones, R.– Levi, S.T.– Bettelli, M.– Vagnetti, L.: Italo -Mycenaean Pottery. The archaeological and archaeometric dimensions. Incunabula Graeca 103. Roma. Jung, R.2006: ΧΡΟΝΟΛΟΓΙΑ COMPARATA. Vergleichende Chronologie von Südgriechenland und Süditalien von ca. 1700/1600 bis 1000 v. u. Z. Wien. Jung, R.etal. 2020: Frattesina between continental Europe and the eastern Mediterranean. Padusa 56, 173–202. Jung, R.– Mehofer, M. 2013: Mycenaean Greece and Bronze Age Italy. Cooperation, trade or war. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 43, 175–193.
39ANTHONY HARDING Jung, R.– Mehofer, M.– Pernicka, E. 2011: Metal exchange in Italy from the Middle to the Final Bronze Age (14th–11th Century B.C.E.). In: P.P. Betancourt– S.C. Ferrence (eds.): Metallurgy. Understanding How, Learning why. Studies in Honor of JamesD. Muhly. Philadelphia, 231–249. Jung, R.– Moschos, I.– Mehofer, M. 2008: Fonevontas me ton idio tropo. Eirinikes epafes yia ton polemo metaxi dutikis Helladas kai Italias kata ti diarcheia ton opsimon mukenaikon chronon [Killing in the same way. Peaceful relations on war between Western Greece and Italy during the late Mycenaean times]. In: S.A. Paipetis– C. Giannopoulou (eds.): Praktika. Politismiki allilogonimopoiisi notias Italias kai dutikis Elladas mesa apo tin istoria / Proceedings. Cultural Cross Fertilization of southern Italy and western Greece through history. Patras, 85–107. Kardamaki, E.– Vasilogamvrou, A. 2021: Handmade Burnished Pottery in the palace of Ayios Vasileios, Laconia (Southern Greece). In: R. Jung (ed.): Punta di ZambroneI. 1200 BCE– aTime of Breakdown, aTime of Progress in Southern Italy and Greece. Wien, 509–525. Kilian, K.– Mühlenbruch, T. 2007: Die handgemachte geglättete Keramik Mykenischer Zeitstellung. Tiryns 15. Wiesbaden. Kristiansen, K. 1998: Europe before History. Cambridge. Kristiansen, K.– Larsson, T. 2007: The Classical Tradition Strikes Back. Reply to Comments on The Rise of Bronze Age Society from Gullög Nordquist and Helène Whittaker. Norwegian Archaeological Review 40, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293650701207001 Kristiansen, K.– Larsson, T.B. 2005: The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, transmissions and transformations. Cambridge. Kristiansen, K.– Suchowska ‑Ducke, P.2015: Connected histories. The dynamics of Bronze Age interaction and trade 1500–1100 BC.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 81, 361–392. Kurti, R.2013: Amber during Late Bronze Age and Iron Age in Albania. Iliria 36, 73–108. Kurti, R.2017: Carnelian and amber beads as evidence of Late Bronze Age contacts between the present territory of Albania and the Aegean. In: M. Fotiadisetal. (eds.): ΕΣΠΕΡΟΣ / ΗESPEROS. The Aegean seen from the West. Proceedings of the 16th International Aegean Conference, University of Ioannina, Depart‑ ment of History and Archaeology, Unit of Archaeology and Art History, 18–21 May 2016. Leuven/Liège. Aegaeum 41, 287–298. Lazaridis, I.etal. 2017: Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans. Nature 548, 214–218. https://doi. org/10.1038/nature23310 Librado, P.etal. 2021: The origins and spread of domestic horses from the Western Eurasian steppes. Nature 598, 634–640. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586‑021‑04018‑9 Ling, J.etal. 2013: Moving metals or indigenous mining? Provenancing Scandinavian Bronze Age artefacts by lead isotopes and trace elements. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 291–304. Ling, J.etal. 2014: Moving metals II. Provenancing Scandinavian Bronze Age artefacts by lead isotope and elemental analyses. Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 106–132. Ling, J.– Stos ‑Gale, Z. 2015: Representations of oxhide ingots in Scandinavian rock art. The sketchbook of aBronze Age traveller? Antiquity 89, 191–209. Lis, B. 2009: Handmade Burnished pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Bronze Age. Towards an explanation for its diversity and geographical distribution. In: C. Bachhuber– R.G. Roberts (eds.): Forces of Transformation. The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an Interna‑ tional Symposium held at St. John’sCollege, University of Oxford, 25th–26th March 2006. Oxford, 150–161. Lo Schiavoetal. 2009 = Lo Schiavo, F.– Muhly, J.D.– Maddin, R. – Giumlia ‑Mair, A.: Oxhide Ingots in the Central Mediterranean. Biblioteca di Antichità Cipriote 8. Roma. Magee, R.W. 1993: Faience beads of the Irish Bronze Age. Archaeomaterials 7, 116–125. Maran, J. 2004: Wessex und Mykene. Zur Deutung des Bernsteins in der Schachtgräberzeit Südgriechen‑ lands. In: B. Hänsel– E. Studeníková (eds.): Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis. Neolithikum und Ältere Bronzezeit. Gedenkschrift für Viera Němejcová -Pavúková. Rahden, 47–65.
40 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 Maran, J. 2013: Bright as the sun. The appropriation of amber objects in Mycenaean Greece. In: H.P.Hahn– H. Weiss (eds.): Mobility, Meaning and the Transformation of Things. Oxford, 147–169. Maran, J. 2020: The introduction of the horse ‑drawn light chariot– divergent responses to atechnological innovation in societies between the Carpathian Basin and the East Mediterranean. In: J. Maranetal. (eds.): Objects, Ideas and Travelers. Contacts between the Balkans, the Aegean and Western Anatolia during the Bronze and Early Iron Age. Volume to the memory of Alexandru Vulpe. Proceedings of the Conference in Tulcea, 10–13 November, 2017. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 350. Bonn, 506–528. Maran, J.– Papadimitriou, A. 2016: Gegen den Strom der Geschichte. Die nördliche Unterstadt von Tiryns. Ein gescheitertes Urbanisierungsprojekt der mykenischen Nachpalastzeit. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2016/2, 19–118. Maran, J.– Papadimitriou, A. 2021: Der lange Schatten der Palastzeit. Die nördliche Unterstadt von Tiryns. Ein Großbauprojekt palast‑ und nachpalastzeitlicher Entscheidungsträger. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2021/1, 1–141. https://doi.org/10.34780/v26c ‑v2o5 Maran, J.– Stockhammer, P.W. 2020: Emulation in ceramic of abronze bucket of the Kurd type from Tiryns. Origini 44, 93–110. Maran, J.– Van de Moortel, A. 2014: Ahorse ‑bridle piece with Carpatho ‑Danubian connections from Late Helladic IMitrou and the emergence of awarlike elite in Greece during the Shaft Grave period. American Journal of Archaeology 118, 529–548. Marková, K. 1993: Bernsteinfunde in der Slowakei während der Bronzezeit. In: C.W. Becketal. (eds.): Amber in Archaeology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Amber in Archaeology, Liblice 1990. Praha, 171–178. Marková, K. 1999: Bernsteinfunde im Karpatenbecken. In: B. Kosmowska ‑Ceranowicz– H. Paner (eds.): Investigations into Amber. Proceedings of the International Interdisciplinary Symposium ‘Baltic Amber and Other Fossil Resins’. Gdańsk, 111–114. Mathieson, I.etal. 2018: The genomic history of southeastern Europe. Nature 2018, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature25778 Matthäus, H. 1980: Italien und Griechenland in der ausgehenden Bronzezeit. Studien zu einigen Formen der Metallindustrie beider Gebiete. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 95, 109–139. Mehofer, M.– Jung, R.2017: Weapons and metals– interdisciplinary research on Late Bronze Age exchange between Italy and Greece. In: P.M. Fischer– T. Bürge (eds.): ‘Sea Peoples’ Up -to -Date. New research on transformations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 13th–11th centuries BCE. Contributions to the Chronology of Eastern Mediterranean 35. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 81. Wien, 389–400. Meirietal. 2019 = Meiri, M.– Stockhammer, Ph.W.– Morgenstern, P.– Maran, J.: Mobility and trade in Medi‑ terranean antiquity. Evidence for an ‘Italian connection’ in Mycenaean Greece revealed by ancient DNA of livestock. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 23, 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.10.011 von Merhart, G. 1940: Die Bernsteinschieber von Kakovatos. Germania 24, 99–102. Mildneretal. 2009 = Mildner, St.– Falkenstein, F.– Schmidt, J.‑P.– Schüssler, U.: Materialanalytische Untersuchungen and ausgewählten Glasperlen des bronzezeitlichen Hortfund von Neustrelitz, Lkr. Mecklenburg ‑Strelitz. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg -Vorpommern, Jahrbuch 57, 43–63. Milojčić, V. 1955: Neue Bernsteinschieber aus Griechenland. Germania 33, 316–319. Nafplioti, A. 2009: Mycenae Revisited Part 2. Exploring the local versus non ‑local geographical origin of the individuals from Grave Circle A: evidence from Strontium isotope ratio (87Sr/86Sr) analysis. Annual of the British School at Athens 104, 279–291. Negroni Catacchio, N. 1972: La problematica dell’ambra nella protostoria italiana. Le ambre intagliate di Fratta Polesine e le rotte mercantili nell’Alto Adriatico. Padusa 8, 3–20. Negroni Catacchio, N. 2014: Ivaghi tipo Tirinto e Allumiere come indicatori di status. Nuovi dati su cron‑ ologia e diffusione. In: G. Baldelli– F. Lo Schiavo (eds.): Amore per l’Antico, dal Tirreno all’Adriatico, dalla Preistoria al Medioevo e oltre. Studi di antichità in ricordo di Giuliano de Marinis. Roma, 3–14.
41ANTHONY HARDING Negroni Catacchio, N.– Gallo, V. 2018: Adriatico mare dell’ambra. Il Caput Adriae porta tra Europa e mondo mediterraneo. In: E. Borgna– P.Càssola Guida– S. Corazza (eds.): Preistoria e Protostoria del Caput Adriae. Studi di Preistoria e Protostoria 5. Firenze, 407–418. Nikita, K.– Nightingale, G.– Chenery, S. 2017: Mixed ‑alkali glass beads from Elateia ‑Alonaki. Tracing the routes of an alien glass technology in the periphery of post ‑palatial Mycenaean Greece. In: M. Foti‑ adisetal. (eds): ΕΣΠΕΡΟΣ / HESPEROS. The Aegean Seen from the West. Aegaeum 16. Leuven/Liège, 515–523. Nikita, K.– Henderson, J. 2006: Glass analyses from Mycenaean Thebes and Elateia. Compositional evidence for aMycenaean glass industry. Journal of Glass Studies 48, 71–120. Nordquist, G.– Whittaker, H. 2007: Comments on Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson. The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cam‑ bridge. Norwegian Archaeological Review 40, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293650601159245 Olalde, I.etal. 2018: The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe. Nature 555, 190–196. Pabst, S. 2013: Naue II ‑Schwerter mit Knaufzunge und die Aussenbeziehungen der mykenischen Kriegerelite in postpalatialer Zeit. Jahrbuch des Römisch -Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 60, 105–152. Palavestra, A. 1992: Amber beads of the Tiryns type. Balcanica 23, 381–291. Palavestra, A. 1993: Praistorijski cilibar na centralnom izapadnom Balkanu. Beograd. Patterson, N.etal. 2022: Large ‑scale migration into Britain during the Middle to Late Bronze Age. Nature 601, 588–594. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586‑021‑04287‑4 Penner, S. 1998: Schliemanns Schachtgräber und der europäische Nordosten. Studien zur Herkunft der frühmykenischen Streitwagenausstattung. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 60. Bonn. Piggott, S. 1966: Mycenae and barbarian Europe: an outline survey. Sborník Národního muzea vPraze 20, 117–125. Pilides, D. 1994: Handmade burnished wares of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean ar‑ chaeology 105. Jonsered. Rahmstorf, L. 2010: The concept of weighing during the Bronze Age in the Aegean, the Near East and Europe. In: I. Morley– C. Renfrew (eds.): The Archaeology of Measurement. Comprehending Heaven, Earth and Time in Ancient Societies. Cambridge, 88–105. Rahmstorf, L. 2019: Scales, weights and weight ‑regulated artefacts in Middle and Late Bronze Age Britain. Antiquity 93, 1197–1210. Romanos, C.L. 2011: Handmade Burnished Ware in Late Bronze Age Greece and its makers. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham. Rose, C.B. 2008: Separating fact from fiction in the Aiolian migration. Hesperia 77/3, 399–430. Rutter, J.B. 2020: Late Palatial versus Early Postpalatial Mycenaean pottery (c. 1250–1150 BC). Ceramic change during an episode of cultural collapse and regeneration. In: G.D. Middleton (ed.): Collapse and Transformation. The Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age in the Aegean. Oxford, 209–219. Rutter, J.B. forthcoming 2022: Late Minoan IIIB ceramic regionalism and chronological correlations with LH IIIB –C phases on the Greek mainland. In: R. Jung– E. Kardamaki (eds.): Synchronizing the Destructions of the Mycenaean Palaces. Wien. Salzani, L.– Angelini, I.etal. 2006: Le ambre delle necropoli di Olmo di Nogara e Scalvinetto. In: Atti della XXXIX Riunione Scientifica. Materie prime e scambi nella preistoria Italiana. Firenze, 1608–1613. Sandars, N.K. 1959: Amber spacer ‑plates again. Antiquity 33, 292–295. Schauer, P.1983: Orient im spätbronze‑ und früheisenzeitlichen Occident. Kulturbeziehungen zwischen der Iberischen Halbinsel und dem Vorderen Orient während des späten 2. und des ersten Drittels des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Römisch -Germanischen Zentramuseums Mainz 30, 175–194. Schauer, P.1984: Spuren minoisch ‑mykenischen und orientalischen Einflusses in atlantischen Westeuropa. Jahrbuch des Römisch -Germanischen Zentramuseums Mainz 31, 137–186.
42 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/1 Schauer, P.1985: Spuren orientalischen und ägäischen Einflusses im bronzezeitlichen Nordischen Kreis. Jahrbuch des Römisch -Germanischen Zentramuseums Mainz 32, 123–195. Schauer, P.ed. 1990: Orientalisch -ägäische Einflüsse in der europäischen Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse eines Kollo‑ quiums vom 16.–19.10.1985 in Mainz. Römisch ‑Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Monographien 15. Mainz. Sgouritsa Polychronakou, P.– Nikolentzos, K. 2016: The amber in Greece during the Late Bronze Age and its presence at Kakovatos, western Greece. In: P.L. Cellarosietal. (eds.): The Amber Roads. The Ancient Cultural and Commercial Communication between the Peoples. Millenni. Studi di archeologia preistorica 13. Roma, 233–246. Sheridan, A.– Shortland, A. 2004: ‘… beads which have given rise to so much dogmatism, controversy and rash speculation’: faience in Early Bronze Age Britain and Ireland. In: I.A.G. Shepherd– G.J. Barclay (eds.): Scotland in Ancient Europe. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in their European Context. Edinburgh, 263–279. Shortland, A. 2016: Towards an understanding of the origin of Late Bronze Age Greek glass. In: E. Kiriatzi– C. Knappett (eds.): Human Mobility and Technological Transfer in the Prehistoric Mediterranean. Cambridge, 94–101. Shortland, A.– Shishlina, N.– Yegorkov, A. 2007: Origin and production of faience beads in the North Caucasus and the Northwest Caspian Sea region in the Bronze Age. In: B. Lyonnet (ed.): Les cultures du Caucase, VIe–IIIe millénaires avant notre ère. Leurs relations avec le Proche -Orient. Paris, 269–283. Sîrbu, V.– Schuster, C. 1997: Mykenische Importe und Einflüsse im Donau ‑Karpaten ‑Schwarzmeerraum. Ein Überblick. Cultură și civilizație la Dunărea de jos 15, 302–324. Sprockhoff, E. 1961: Eine mykenische Bronzetasse von Dohnsen, Kr. Celle. Germania 39, 11–22. Stockhammer, P.W. 2008: Kontinuität und Wandel. Die Keramik der Nachpalastzeit aus der Unterstadt von Tiryns. Ruprecht ‑Karls ‑Universität Heidelberg, PhD dissertation. URL: http://www.ub.uni ‑heidelberg. de/archiv/8612. Stolyarova, E.K. 2000: Sireviye materiali iproiskhozhdenie bus epokhi bronzi zapadnoi chasti evraziiskikh stepei [Raw materials and the origin of beads of the Bronze Age from the western part of the Eurasian steppe]. In: N. Shishlina (ed.): Sezonniy ekonomicheskiy cikl naselenya severo -zapadnogo Prikaspiya vbronzovom veke. Trudy Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo Muzeya 120. Moskva, 91–99. Stone, J.F.S.– Thomas, L.C. 1956: The use and distribution of faience in the Ancient East and prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 22, 37–84. Strack, S. 2007: Regional Dynamics and Social Change in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Astudy of handmade pottery from southern and central Greece. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh. Suchowska ‑Ducke, P.2015: Understanding cross ‑cultural communication in the European Bronze Age. In: P.M. Militello– H. Öniz (eds.): SOMA 2011. Proceedings of the 15 th Symposium on Mediterrean Archaeology, held at the University of Catania 3–5 March 2011. BAR International Series 2695/I. Oxford, 11–19. Suchowska ‑Ducke, P.2016: The Mycenaeans and Europe. Long ‑distance networks and cross ‑cultural com‑ munication. In: O.C. Aslaksen (ed.): Local and Global Perspectives on Mobility in the Eastern Mediterranean. Athens, 63–81. Thrane, H. 1990: The Mycenaean fascination. Anortherner’sview. In: Schauer ed. 1990, 165–179. Towleetal. 2001 = Towle, A.– Henderson, J.– Bellintani, P.– Gambacurta, G.: Frattesina and Adria. Report of scientific analysis of early glass from the Veneto. Padusa 37, 7–68. Varberg, J.– Gratuze, B.– Kaul, F. 2015: Between Egypt, Mesopotamia and Scandinavia: Late Bronze Age glass beads found in Denmark. Journal of Archaeological Science 54, 168–181. Varbergetal. 2016 = Varberg, J.– Gratuze, B.– Kaul, F.– Haslund Hansen, A.– Rotea, M.– Wittenberger, M.: Mesopotamian glass from Late Bronze Age Egypt, Romania, Germany, and Denmark. Journal of Archaeological Science 74, 184–194.
43ANTHONY HARDING Verkooijen, K. 2014: Tears of the Sun. Bronze Age Amber Spacers from Britain and Europe. University of Exeter, unpublished PhD dissertation. Verkooijen, K. 2017: Report and catalogue of the amber found at Bernstorf, near Kranzberg, Freising district, Bavaria, Germany. Jahresschrift fur Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 96, 139–230. Vianello, A. 2005: Late Bronze Age Mycenaean and Italic products in the west Mediterranean: asocial and economic analysis. BAR International Series 1439. Oxford. Vianello, A. 2008: Late Bronze Age Aegean Trade Routes in the Western Mediterranean. In: H. Whittaker (ed.): The Aegean Bronze Age in relation to the Wider European Context. Papers from asession at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, Cork, 5–11 September 2005. BAR Inter‑ national Series 1745. Oxford, 7–34. Vianello, A. 2009: Late Bronze Age exchange networks in the western Mediterranean. In: C. Bachhuber– R.G. Roberts (eds.): Forces of Transformation. The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at St. John’sCollege, University of Oxford, 25th–26th March 2006. Themes from the Ancient Near East BANEA Publication Series 1. Oxford, 44–50. Vladár, J. 1973: Osteuropäische und mediterrane Einflüsse im Gebiet der Slowakei während der Bronzezeit. Slovenská Archeológia 31/2, 253–357. Waltonetal. 2009 = Walton, M.S.– Shortland, A.– Kirk, S.– Degryse, P.: Evidence for the trade of Mesopo‑ tamian and Egyptian glass to Mycenaean Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 36/7, 1496–1503. Wangetal. 2016 = Wang, Q.– Strekopytov, S.– Roberts, B.W. – Wilkin, N.: Tin ingots from aprobable Bronze Age shipwreck off the coast of Salcombe, Devon: composition and microstructure. Journal of Archaeological Science 67, 80–92. Watkins, T. 1976: Wessex without Cyprus. ‘Cypriot Daggers’ in Europe. In: J.V.S. Megaw (ed.): To illustrate the monuments. Essays on archaeology presented to Stuart Piggott on the occasion of his sixty -fifth birthday. London, 135–143. Zygouris, T. 2019: Amber in the Mycenaean world and in the Balkan Peninsula during the 2nd millennium BC.Perspectives of an imported material. Be -Ja, Bulgarian e -Journal of Archaeology Supplementa 7, 177–189. Anthony Harding Department of Archaeology University of Exeter, UK [email protected]